<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1989 (8) TMI 17 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22754</link>
    <description>Section 269C requires the Competent Authority to form a clear prima facie belief on the statutory object and supporting material before initiating acquisition proceedings. A notice that retains the ambiguous expression &quot;and/or&quot; shows no concluded mind as to which statutory object is relied on, and is therefore invalid. The notice is also unsustainable where the valuation basis is materially defective: absent proper comparable sales and with assumptions inconsistent with the actual construction, the material cannot support the requisite reason to believe. The initiation therefore failed at the threshold and the impugned notice could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:02:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61753" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (8) TMI 17 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22754</link>
      <description>Section 269C requires the Competent Authority to form a clear prima facie belief on the statutory object and supporting material before initiating acquisition proceedings. A notice that retains the ambiguous expression &quot;and/or&quot; shows no concluded mind as to which statutory object is relied on, and is therefore invalid. The notice is also unsustainable where the valuation basis is materially defective: absent proper comparable sales and with assumptions inconsistent with the actual construction, the material cannot support the requisite reason to believe. The initiation therefore failed at the threshold and the impugned notice could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22754</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>